Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly...

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” ...

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced...

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

The intensity of the administration’s opposition to the breast-feeding resolution stunned public health officials and foreign diplomats.

During the deliberations, some American delegates even suggested the United States might cut its contribution the W.H.O.

The confrontation was the latest example of the Trump administration siding with corporate interests on numerous public health and environmental issues.

I remember during the campaign. Idiot boy said something about a female lawyer who was deposing him who had to stop so she could pump breast milk. He called it disgusting. I suspect Trump's opposition comes from is own sexual inadequacies and hang-ups.

Trump's taking us back to the 70s when Nestle promoted powdered infant formula by advertising it as more modern than breast feeding. Kid's died from the dirty water moms mixed the powder with and malnutrition when the formula was diluted to make it last longer.

Creating a need where none existed.
Convincing consumers the products were indispensable.
Linking products with the most desirable and unattainable concepts—then giving a sample.

Keep your breasts pretty.

Quote:

Poor women longed to move from a rural to an urban way of life, which prodded them to abandon breastfeeding and in turn primed them for marketing, said War on Want:

"As the social position of women changes and they go out to earn a wage ... looking at the breast as a cosmetic sex symbol rather than a source of nourishment reinforces the trend."

Can you imagine the meeting where Nestle employees decided there was a huge market for infant formula in poverty stricken areas of Africa?

Quote:

Besides handing out pamphlets and samples to new mothers, companies hired "'sales girls in nurses' uniforms (sometimes qualified, sometimes not)" to drop by their homes unannounced and sell them on baby formula, said War on Want....

Playing into undernourished women's fear of harming their newborn was a "confidence trick," said War on Want. When these women felt fear, pain or sadness, their milk would dry up as a result.

Bribing hospitals:

Quote:

This worked on two levels, said New Internationalist: In exchange for handing out "discharge packs" of formula, hospitals received freebies like formula and baby bottles.

"The most insidious of these is a free architectural service to hospitals which are building or renovating facilities for newborn care," the authors wrote.

Meanwhile in the Third World, women tried to save money by diluting the formula.

And if that wasn't bad enough:

Quote:

Nestlé wasn't about to take these allegations lying down. It sued a German translator of War on Want's exposé, which published it in Sweden with the title, "Nestlé Kills Babies."

Nestlé won the suit in 1976, said Baby Milk Action , but with a caveat: The judge urged them to "modify its publicity methods fundamentally." Time Magazine declared this a "moral victory" for consumers.

__________________Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Trump's taking us back to the 70s when Nestle promoted powdered infant formula by advertising it as more modern than breast feeding. Kid's died from the dirty water moms mixed the powder with and malnutrition when the formula was diluted to make it last longer.

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

You know, when the US keeps making itself look like the bad guys, and Russia and China keep on looking like the Good Guys, then something is fundamentally wrong with the US Foreign Policies.

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

U.S. delegates pushed for removal of resolution language calling on governments to "protect, promote and support breast-feeding."

According to the Times, they also issued an ultimatum:

If Ecuador didn't drop the resolution, Washington would withdraw military aid and issue punishing trade measures.

Ecuador backed down.

Russia stepped in
Fearing retaliation, several other countries backed away from the measure as well, according to the report.

Russia was not dissuaded and introduced it.

The final resolution largely reflected the original wording. But the U.S. insisted on removing language calling on the World Health Organization to offer technical support to officials trying to stop “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children,” according to the Times.

Does anyone know off the top of their heads who the current US delegates are, and who appointed them?

No. Other way around, they don't want to be forced “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” cause you know how conservatives are about Governmental Control over woman's bodies. You know sort of along the same lines that they don't want to be forced to tell women the truth regarding contraceptives, abortion or that they aren't actually medical practitioners, but are just pretending to prevent women from getting real medical advice about their pregnancies and the options that they have regarding them.

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

I feel like I've gone back in time, back to the time where I spent my days fighting against an immoral government.

We dealt with this already, boycotted Nestle, exposed corporations that exploited the resources and the poor in third world countries.

It's wrong on so may levels.

We had come so far with Obama.

But we'll get back there.

Feel ya. But if it's any comfort, I'm younger than you and in the early 2000's learned about the fights y'all fought with Nestle et al back in the day. There's a sort of informal "institutional knowledge" being passed on all the way down to kids in Jr High as "common knowledge" today.

The milk formula industry has been struggling against stagnating sales in recent years, but is still worth $70bn annually. The small number of giants that produce it are concentrated in the US and Europe.

One of those giants, Abbott Nutrition, is part of the healthcare multinational Abbott Laboratories that contributed to Trump’s inauguration ceremonies in January 2017.

__________________...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

The milk formula industry has been struggling against stagnating sales in recent years, but is still worth $70bn annually. The small number of giants that produce it are concentrated in the US and Europe.

One of those giants, Abbott Nutrition, is part of the healthcare multinational Abbott Laboratories that contributed to Trump’s inauguration ceremonies in January 2017.

__________________...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Australian milk formula is in such heavy demand in China that customers have been raiding supermarket shelves and exporting the formula to China for a tidy profit. Many supermarkets had to resort to rationing so that locals didn't miss out.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-2...dustry/9671012

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Australian milk formula is in such heavy demand in China that customers have been raiding supermarket shelves and exporting the formula to China for a tidy profit. Many supermarkets had to resort to rationing so that locals didn't miss out.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-2...dustry/9671012

I'm missing the connection between the topic of this thread and the demand for Australian formula in China.

Why should every parent know that? It actually seems like any middle class parent in the first world would be fine without knowing it.

Not if it leads to measures which can harm children.

Science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that breast milk provides more nutrients and antibodies that a child needs than formula does, but because of the association of breasts with sexual activity, the act of breastfeeding became badly stigmatized and is only now making a resurgence due to activists making people aware of the possibility they may be harming their infant by not at least attempting to breastfeed, and actively campaigning to allow breastfeeding in public spaces in order to destigmatize the act. Given that, the importance of knowing how formula makers have fudged the truth in regards to the benefits of formula vs breast milk becomes rather more important to new parents than otherwise.

Now, formula is not all bad; there are many instances where a mother has to either supplement or completely replace breast milk with formula; her body may not be producing enough, perhaps her infant has trouble with latching on to her nipple vs. the nipple of the bottle, or other health issues may be preventing her from breast feeding vs. bottle feeding, but the point is, formula makers have a vested interest in fudging the truth about the benefits of breast milk vs. formula, and the potential harm to infants who are not breast fed doesn't factor into their equation at all. Now thankfully the effort was defeated, but it's still a step backward from all the progress that has been made in this country to destigmatize breast feeding, which is, if I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Skeptic Ginger's point in making the post.

Science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that breast milk provides more nutrients and antibodies that a child needs than formula does, but because of the association of breasts with sexual activity, the act of breastfeeding became badly stigmatized and is only now making a resurgence due to activists making people aware of the possibility they may be harming their infant by not at least attempting to breastfeed, and actively campaigning to allow breastfeeding in public spaces in order to destigmatize the act. Given that, the importance of knowing how formula makers have fudged the truth in regards to the benefits of formula vs breast milk becomes rather more important to new parents than otherwise.

Now, formula is not all bad; there are many instances where a mother has to either supplement or completely replace breast milk with formula; her body may not be producing enough, perhaps her infant has trouble with latching on to her nipple vs. the nipple of the bottle, or other health issues may be preventing her from breast feeding vs. bottle feeding, but the point is, formula makers have a vested interest in fudging the truth about the benefits of breast milk vs. formula, and the potential harm to infants who are not breast fed doesn't factor into their equation at all. Now thankfully the effort was defeated, but it's still a step backward from all the progress that has been made in this country to destigmatize breast feeding, which is, if I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Skeptic Ginger's point in making the post.

It is certainly debatable how significant those differences in nutrients and antibodies matter and if they are worth it.

It is certainly debatable how significant those differences in nutrients and antibodies matter and if they are worth it.

No. What a stupid, or perhaps deceptive, thing to say!
Breast milk costs virtually nothing, and is the better choice by any standard.
There really cannot be a debate in 2018 about this. If a mother has milk, and her baby can drink it without trouble, it is both the better and the cheaper option. Period.

No. What a stupid, or perhaps deceptive, thing to say!
Breast milk costs virtually nothing, and is the better choice by any standard.
There really cannot be a debate in 2018 about this. If a mother has milk, and her baby can drink it without trouble, it is both the better and the cheaper option. Period.

Time and discomfort is a cost. Which means how much better and how it actually affects outcomes matter.

It is certainly debatable how significant those differences in nutrients and antibodies matter and if they are worth it.

A proven FACT is that an infant gets quite a bit of antibodies via a mother's breast milk that they cannot get via formula. Antibodies that the infant cannot get via other means until they are old enough for vaccinations, and thus risks exposure to what, to an infant, can be deadly diseases.

Quote:

A number of health organizations — including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) — recommend breastfeeding as the best choice for babies. Breastfeeding helps defend against infections, prevent allergies, and protect against a number of chronic conditions.

From here. The website further elaborates to state that breast-fed infants statistically have fewer infections and hospitalizations than formula-fed infants. Breast milk is also far easier to digest for an infant than formula, no matter how well formulated, meaning fewer bouts of diarrhea or constipation for breast-fed versus bottle-fed infants.

Again, I'm not saying formula is BAD. I'm simply saying breast milk is, overall, better for an infant in terms of overall health and growth than formula is. That is a proven fact, no matter your protestations.

"The failing NY Times Fake News story today about breast feeding must be called out. The U.S. strongly supports breast feeding but we don’t believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty.""

A proven FACT is that an infant gets quite a bit of antibodies via a mother's breast milk that they cannot get via formula. Antibodies that the infant cannot get via other means until they are old enough for vaccinations, and thus risks exposure to what, to an infant, can be deadly diseases.

From here. The website further elaborates to state that breast-fed infants statistically have fewer infections and hospitalizations than formula-fed infants. Breast milk is also far easier to digest for an infant than formula, no matter how well formulated, meaning fewer bouts of diarrhea or constipation for breast-fed versus bottle-fed infants.

Again, I'm not saying formula is BAD. I'm simply saying breast milk is, overall, better for an infant in terms of overall health and growth than formula is. That is a proven fact, no matter your protestations.

I didn't dispute any of that. Of course it is true. But the issue is how much of a difference it makes. What are the odds of a hospitalization for the two populations? Yes, it is more for one, but how much more matters.

To use an analogy, it is a fact that buying a second lottery ticket doubles your chance of winning.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.